Savannah Dietrich is facing contempt of court charges in Louisville, Kentucky. Her crime: Tweeting the names of the two boys who sexually assaulted her.

If convicted, 17-year-old Savannah could spend as many as 180 days in jail. Thats because she violated a court order that the names of her attackers remain confidential.

Savannah went public in frustration after lawyers representing the juvenile offenders worked a plea deal last month that allowed the boys to escape the maximum punishment for their crime.

Lock me up, the she tweeted, defiantly. Im not protecting anyone who made my life a living Hell.

Indeed, the Kentucky girls two rapists got her so drunk at a party last summer that she passed out. Then they had their way with her.

And if that wasnt egregious enough, they took photos of themselves having sex with the inebriated girl. Then they shared the photos with friends.

Of course, under-age Savannah should not have been drinking; should not have gotten wasted. That was bad judgment on her part.

But that absolutely does not forgive the Kentucky girls two assailants for taking sexual advantage of her. It in no way mitigates their crime.

For months, I cried myself to sleep, Savannah lamented. I couldnt go out in public places.

So when she found out last month  after the fact  that her attackers pled guilty to first-degree sexual abuse and misdemeanor voyeurism  which, because they are minors, could mean little or no jail time  she was outraged.

She went public with her story, which meant forfeiting the anonymity that juvenile crime victims (and offenders) usually receive. And she identified her attackers, so that they would suffer the public ignominy they deserve.

It remains to be seen if young Savannah is found in contempt of court  which she should not be.

If they really feel its necessary, she said, to throw me in jail for talking about what happened to me, as opposed to throwing these boys in jail for what they did to me, then I dont understand justice.

Thank God for the Constitutional protections afforded the criminally accused. But crime victims, like young Savannah, also should have certain rights - including a right to be heard, directly or indirectly, during the plea bargaining process.

If they really feel its necessary, she said, to throw me in jail for talking about what happened to me, as opposed to throwing these boys in jail for what they did to me, then I dont understand justice.

I don’t think victims can decide if a plea agreement is made or not. One way the DA can keep a strong conviction % is for plea agreements. Lessen the charge or threaten a full, twenty five year rape conviction. “Why bargain in the first place?”... I have the strong suspicion that the victim willingly going to the party and getting intoxicated may have led a jury member or two to possibly question if the sexual contact was consensual. The DA probably offered a plea deal so they would get some kind of conviction rather than risk a possible acquittal. IMHO.

There was a movie that had a couple of cowboys tie a man to a fence, pull down his pants, bring over a hungry calf and tell the man, “It’s going to feel great for about five seconds. Then your skin is going to rip right off.”

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.